29 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2026 13 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Camerongreen2 sentences2026“The language of MCL 768.27b clearly indicates that trial courts have discretion to admit relevant evidence of other domestic assaults to prove any issue, even the character of the accused, if the evidence meets the standard of MRE 403.” People v Cameron, 291 Mich App 599, 609 ; 806 NW2d 371 (2011) (cleaned up). 2026“The language of MCL 768.27b clearly indicates that trial courts have discretion to admit relevant evidence of other domestic assaults to prove any issue, even the character of the accused, if the evidence meets the standard of MRE 403.” People v Cameron, 291 Mich App 599, 609 ; 806 NW2d 371 (2011) (cleaned up). | 5 | 24 |
People v. Railergreen2 sentences2015See also People v Railer, 288 Mich App 213, 219-20 ; 792 NW2d 776 (2010) (“MCL 768.27b permits evidence of prior domestic violence in order to show a defendant’s character or propensity to commit the same act.”). 2015See also People v Railer, 288 Mich App 213, 219-20 ; 792 NW2d 776 (2010) (“MCL 768.27b permits evidence of prior domestic violence in order to show a defendant’s character or propensity to commit the same act.”). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Danielsgreen2 sentences2025That statute provides for the admission of other-acts evidence relating to domestic violence or sexual assault “for any purpose for which it is relevant” so long as “it is not otherwise excluded under [MRE] 403.” See also People v Daniels, 311 Mich App 257, 272 ; 874 NW2d 732 (2015) (“The language of MCL 768.27b clearly indicates that trial courts have discretion to admit relevant evidence of other domestic assaults to prove any issue, even the character of the accused, if the evidence meets the standard of MRE 403.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “ ‘Sexual assault,’ ” as used in thi 2025That statute provides for the admission of other-acts evidence relating to domestic violence or sexual assault “for any purpose for which it is relevant” so long as “it is not otherwise excluded under [MRE] 403.” See also People v Daniels, 311 Mich App 257, 272 ; 874 NW2d 732 (2015) (“The language of MCL 768.27b clearly indicates that trial courts have discretion to admit relevant evidence of other domestic assaults to prove any issue, even the character of the accused, if the evidence meets the standard of MRE 403.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “ ‘Sexual assault,’ ” as used in thi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Pattison
green
2 sentences2025Moreover, MCL 768.27b explicitly permits the admission of evidence of other acts of sexual assault “to prove any issue . . . if the evidence meets the standard of MRE 403.” People v Pattison, 276 Mich App 613, 615 ; 741 NW2d 558 (2007). 2025Moreover, MCL 768.27b explicitly permits the admission of evidence of other acts of sexual assault “to prove any issue . . . if the evidence meets the standard of MRE 403.” People v Pattison, 276 Mich App 613, 615 ; 741 NW2d 558 (2007). | 10 | 2015–2025 |
People v. Mills
green
2 sentences2025Under MRE 403, relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” To be sure, all “evidence offered by the parties is ‘prejudicial’ to some extent, but the fear of prejudice does not generally render the evidence inadmissible.” People v Mills, 450 Mich 61, 75 ; 537 NW2d 909 (1995). 2025Under MRE 403, relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” To be sure, all “evidence offered by the parties is ‘prejudicial’ to some extent, but the fear of prejudice does not generally render the evidence inadmissible.” People v Mills, 450 Mich 61, 75 ; 537 NW2d 909 (1995). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Watkins; People v. Pullen
green
1 sentence2024The Watkins Court set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors that might lead a court to exclude other-acts evidence under MRE 403, despite its relevance: (1) the dissimilarity between the other acts and the charged crime, (2) the temporal proximity of the other acts to the charged crime, (3) the infrequency of the other acts, (4) the presence of intervening acts, (5) the lack of reliability of the evidence supporting the occurrence of the other acts, and (6) the lack of need for evidence beyond the complainant’s and the defendant’s testimony. [Watkins, 491 Mich at 487-488 .] These factors weig | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.